Uranium Mining Legacy Sites
and Remediation A Global Perspective
Peter Waggitt
Waste Safety Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Namibia - October - 2007
Background
• Uranium mining activity has been growing rapidly in the past few years
after a long period of near total dormancy
•
• Exploration and development is now going on worldwide in over 30
countries both current and former suppliers as well as new prospects
with established resources
• Whilst a few earlier sites have been remediated there are many legacy
sites which require still attention - but some of these former mines are
now being examined for their potential to be re-opened
• It is important that this new round of uranium production is done in
accordance with established international safety standards to protect
workers, people and the environment - this should not ignore the
significant issue of legacy site remediation
• We should take account of lessons and experience learned from past
remediation work ……………………….or lack of it
Mill residues and former mill remains, Taboshar, Tajikistan
Uranium mining - remediation worldwide
Most uranium mining activity has taken place since 1950
• Few efforts to clean up in the early days, and even in the last 20 years in
some places
Now we have begun to take action, e.g:
• USA 1978 ~ UMTRA
• AUSTRALIA 1980s ~ Rum Jungle, Mary Kathleen
• GERMANY 1991 ~ WISMUT
• AUSTRALIA 1995 ~ Nabarlek
• GABON 1999 ~ Mounana, COMUF/AREVA
• FRANCE 2001 ~ Limousin area
• AUSTRALIA 2003 ~ South Alligator Valley
IAEA
• A part of the United Nations, the Agency has worked since 1957 with its
2300 staff, a budget of € 383.6M, 144 Member States and 65 partner
organisations worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear
technologies
• The IAEA promotes:
Safeguards & Verification - Science and Technology - Safety and
Security
• Of the IAEA’s six departments, three are of significance to legacy
issues:
-Nuclear Safety and Security (NS) – waste management and safety
-Technical Cooperation (TC) – technical assistance & limited funding
-Nuclear Energy (NE) – uranium resources and new mine technology
Case History: Central Asia - Intervention
• Members States participating are:
•
•
•
•
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan & Uzbekistan
All 4 Member States are interested in managing and/or
remediating the legacy of former uranium mining and
milling activities to protect their population and environment
These 4 Member States have similar problems in the same
geographical region and under similar climatic conditions
A regional project offers opportunities for improving
cooperation and understanding between the participants; it
also offers efficiencies in service delivery for IAEA
Waste Safety Section of NS providing Technical Support to
TC Department
Central Asia
Kyrgyzstan – legacy sites
Mailuu Suu (KYG) April 2007
Tailings
Landslip
River
Plant
Landslip
Landslip
Uzbekistan
Uranium mining
legacies
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
Uranium mining
legacies
Kazakhstan
Uranium mining
legacies
Case History: Australia – Intervention - SAV
South Alligator Valley
• 1953 to 1963 ~ 13 mines and numerous prospects, no
remediation
• 1986~ tailings removed for gold extraction, no other
remediation; area becomes a National Park - Kakadu
• 1991 ~ reduction of physical and radiation hazards, simple
burial to bring dose rate to <0.3mSv/y
• 1998 ~ commence studies for remediation to international
standards
• 2001-2006 ~ investigations and minor works, design
studies
• 2007 ~ tenders called for first phase works
South Alligator valley, Australia 1988
AbandonedSouth
CCDsAlligator
at former
uranium
mill
Mill
site 1986
South Alligator Mill site,
Australia. 1988.
South Alligator Mill site, Australia. 1991
After hazard reduction program
Case History: Australia - Intervention - Rum Jungle
•
•
•
•
Mined copper & uranium, sulphide ores :1953-71
No remediation, caused impact on the Finniss River
Initial site clean up was superficial
1982 Remediation Plan by Commonwealth Government
•
•
•
•
encapsulation of acid producing rocks and containment of tailings
treatment of contaminated water
revegetation ( but with exotic species)
reduction in human health hazards
• Remediation standards set, but not adequate by today’s
criteria
• Work done at all sites1983-89
• Monitoring and management period
• Failure of covers on main site by 2000
Rum Jungle
é Pre rehabilitation c. 1980
Post rehabilitation c. 1996 è
Rum Jungle 2002
Case History Australia: Remediation - Nabarlek
HISTORY
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mining in dry season of 1979 & ore stockpiled
Mill built in the wet season (Oct ‘79 to Apr ‘80)
Fly in/Fly out operation with a camp on site
Tailings deposited directly to pit ~ sub-aqueous then sub-aerial
Milling ended in 1988: 10858t U3O8 : mothballed until 1994
Tailings together with heap leach residues capped and wicks installed
•
•
•
•
•
•
Initial cleaning of mill done in 1988-89 & scraping of ponds in 1992
All residues placed in pit
Mill dismantling in wet season 1994-95; all residues placed in pit
Final landform close to original land surface
Clean waste rock as final cover
Final seeding completed December 1995
•
•
Revegetation programme ongoing
Cost about $10 million
Nabarlek mine during the operational phase
Nabarlek in January 1996
Pre-cyclone Monica – trees visible across the site
Nabarlek, 7 March 2006
7 March 2006
Post Cyclone view of Nabarlek site – trees flattened
Case Study Africa: Remediation - Gabon
• Uranium mining ceased in 1999 - decommissioning and
remediation have been proceeding since then
• IAEA has undertaken 3 peer reviews of the work to
assist both the regulator and the operator in their
assessments of the remediation programme in relation
to international standards
• The radiological and physical remediation components
are now considered complete – non-radiological issues
remain
• Monitoring and surveillance continue
Gabon
Mounana Mine
area
May 2006
Case Study Africa : Legacy Site - Shinkolobwe,
DR Congo
Shinkolobwe
Mining 1915-60; closed before independence
Late 90s onwards: artisanal heterogenite mining
July 2004 artisanal workings collapse and
Ministry of Solidarity and Hum. Affairs requests
assistance
Legacy Site: Shinkolobwe - DR Congo
Legacy Site: Shinkolobwe - DR Congo
Case Study: Mongolia - Redevelopment
• Mongolia had a uranium mining industry until 1995, at which time the
Russians abandoned the facilities at 3 sites - without remediation
• In recent years several international companies have been prospecting
both legacy sites and new sites for possible uranium resource
development
• At least 3 prospects described on www - All envisage on-site
processing, something the former operations did not have
• The IAEA is assisting the authorities:
• to upgrade their regulatory system,
• to provide assistance on how to regulate development at new sites, and
• how to integrate and manage re-development and remediation at legacy
sites
• Programme will concentrate on training and experience for regulatory
staff at sites in current major producer countries
Dornod mine site, Mongolia - 2006
MONGOLIA
Dornod Site – July 2006
Abandoned shaft (capped)
and buildings
Open cut, leach pad,
waste rock stockpiles
Mongolia
Mine development 2006
Issues
• Uranium resource development is taking off worldwide
• Many legacy sites remain un-remediated but there is
•
•
•
•
pressure to re-develop in some cases
Some former production nations are under economic
pressure to re-start operations– but knowledge and
resources (both technical and regulatory) are gone
Some countries are being drafted in as potential new
producers – often as offshore operations by existing
producers– again, no local experience and no resources for
regulation
New player companies will need to maintain the quality and
respect the high standards set by current operations
Human resources (as well as physical and financial) are in
short supply – and regulators rarely win the salary race
IAEA initiative
In order to assist incorporation of best practice in new developments IAEA
has commenced on a uranium mining project
In March 2007 an initial meeting was held in Vienna (in association with
the WNA) involving regulators from major uranium producing countries
and representatives of major uranium producers
Members agreed on the need for good regulation and the importance of
maintaining existing standards – especially for new players
A draft of a new Code of Practice for radiological and environmental safety
aimed at new and “re-born” producers is in process of being drafted to
compliment the existing IAEA standards, safety guides and safety
reports
Conclusions
• Uranium mining is an international activity with a wide-spread legacy of
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
abandoned and un-remediated sites
The industry is undergoing a renaissance at a rapidly increasing rate –
but human resources are strained due to short supply so training needs
to be addressed
Remediation of legacy sites has been partly addressed and is on-going
Lessons learned must be heeded - main constraint to legacy
remediation is funding
Failure of new developments/developers to maintain existing safety and
environmental standards could affect expansion adversely
Strong and fair regulation is vital for long term success
IAEA provides support to Member States to help ensure that
appropriate regulatory systems and safety standards are in place to
manage the safe and secure development of all uranium resources
Industry has a vested interest in ensuring the success of this process
whilst ensuring the remediation of legacy sites is not forgotten and no
new legacies are created
Legacy at Taboshar: A farm downstream of the tailings